Robocalls: They're back

Signs display their names on lawns and buildings across Staten Island. The candidates are mass-mailing political ads. What’s next? You guessed it: Robocalls.

As Election Day (Nov. 2) nears, the pre-recorded phone messages - calls that interrupt and seem just to annoy most voters - will inundate our homes.

The automatically dialed calls from politicians or their supporters mostly come at dinnertime. That’s the time the calls are calculated to reach as many people at home as possible. You don’t want such calls? Too bad for you.

U.S. law bans most private telemarketers from placing robocalls for commercial reasons without first obtaining the written permission of consumers. Politicians, however, face no such prohibition, undoubtedly because politicians crafted the regulations.

Candidates record and send robocalls despite plenty of indications that the unsolicited phone messages annoy most voters and just go in one ear and out the other. In many cases, people simply hang up as soon as they recognize the recorded message.

In a survey this month of likely voters in California, four out of every five said they find the calls to be bothersome. Two-thirds chose this response: “Definitely annoying; I never listen to them.”

So if robocalls turn so many voters off, what, then, is the point? Why do politicians continue to rely on annoying robocalls?

Such mass calling - think of carpet bombing - usually targets frequent voters in the hope that they will be receptive to the messages. Especially those get-out-the-vote reminders. Robocalls are attractive to candidates because they’re inexpensive. They only cost about 2.5 cents per automatically dialed call.

Mounting phone banks of live telephone callers on behalf of a candidate is problematic. Volunteers often aren’t easy to assemble. And using them to make calls doesn’t let voters actually hear the voice of a politician. For candidates, delivering automatic phone messages is an alternative to the high cost of TV commercials or the expense of direct mailings. Robocalls can be produced easily and quickly. This lets a candidate respond to new developments before an election.

It also gives politicians the means to deliver sudden accusations and their rivals the means to respond rapidly. Often, robocalls are used by campaigns to issue nasty charges or revelations, the kind considered to be inappropriate for slick and expensive TV ads.

Unfortunately, a recent Supreme Court decision makes it likely that by Election Day 2010, there will be more robocalls than ever. Corporations and unions now have the green light to spend unlimited amounts of money trying to influence the outcome of elections. In the past, activist groups have spent millions on pre-recorded calls.

Laws having to do with robocalls for political purposes vary from state to state. In New York, the recording must declare the nature of the call and identity of the caller at the beginning of the message. The name and phone number of the caller must be stated at the end of the message. Callers are not allowed to block the number from displaying on the recipient’s caller ID.

Backers of political robocalls claim they are protected under the freedom of speech provision of the First Amendment. Others see the unsolicited calls as an unnecessary invasion of privacy. After all, if other kinds of unwelcome phone solicitations, such as for businesses, can be blocked under the “Do-Not-Call” regulations, why can’t political calls? Like most people, we find robocalls not a little annoying.

Congress ought to consider possibilities, such as establishing a Do-Not-Call registry for political calls to let voters opt out, or limiting the timing or number of such calls by candidates.

But the politicians on Capitol Hill and in Albany clearly have no stake in doing away with robocalls.